Haebler v. Luttgen
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Hicks, J., denying a motion for a new trial after a verdict directed by the court in favor of plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Hicks, J., denying a motion for a new trial after a verdict directed by the court in favor of plaintiffs. Exhibit A, referred to in opinion, was as follows: “New York, 4th June, 1891. “In consideration of one dollar paid, it is hereby agreed between the undersigned, Haebler & Company, of New York, and M. O. Luttgen, of Minneapolis, that Haebler & Company ship to M. O. Luttgen, as their agent, Schifferdecker Herman Portland cement, under the following conditions, namely: First, that the price for the Schifferdecker…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
This was an action of claim and delivery, the complaint alleging generally that the plaintiffs were the owners and entitled to the possession of the property which the defendant wrongfully withheld. The answer, as amended on the trial, admitted plaintiffs’ general ownership of the property, but alleged that defendant had received it from them under a written contract (Exhibit A), as their agent to sell on commission; that he had advanced and paid the freight on it from New York to Minneapolis, and, at the request of plaintiffs, had paid insurance on it, and had performed services in storing…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Stockyards National Bank v. B. Harris Wool Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1926
- Couturie v. RoenschCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1911
- Deering Harvester Co. v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Varley & Co. v. ObergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Louisville Coal & Coke Co. v. Pocahontas Co.Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati · 1907